Ohio Wins Fight to Protect Children From Social Media Harm

Ohio Scores Rare Court Victory Against Big Tech

Ohio has scored a significant legal victory in the growing battle over protecting children from the dangers of social media. In a decision that surprised many legal observers, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals restored Ohio’s Social Media Parental Notification Act, allowing the state to enforce parental consent requirements for children under 16 who want to use social media platforms.

The ruling stands out because it represents one of the first major defeats for NetChoice, the powerful technology industry trade association that represents companies including TikTok, Snapchat, Meta, and other major online platforms. For years, NetChoice has successfully challenged similar laws across the country, arguing they violate constitutional free speech protections.

Ohio’s victory suggests courts may be becoming more receptive to arguments that states have a compelling interest in protecting children from online harms.

What Ohio’s Law Requires

Ohio’s Social Media Parental Notification Act was signed into law by Republican Governor Mike DeWine in 2023 as part of the state’s $86.1 billion budget package. The law applies to children under the age of 16 and requires social media and gaming platforms to obtain parental consent before allowing minors to create accounts.

The legislation also requires companies to disclose their privacy policies and moderation practices so parents understand how their children’s information is handled and what types of content may be restricted or promoted.

Supporters say the law is relatively narrow in scope. Rather than banning children from social media, it simply gives parents the authority to decide whether their children should participate.

Writing for the majority, Judge Eric Clay concluded that the law imposed only a limited burden while directly addressing a serious problem.

“At bottom, the Act imposes a parental consent requirement,” Clay wrote. “That requirement constitutes a marginal burden that precisely targets the multi-faceted problem that Ohio has identified: Children’s unsupervised assent to terms and conditions for use of platforms that take advantage of and harm them.”

Judge Alice Batchelder agreed, adding that “a statute is not vague just because it has a wide berth.”

Who Is NetChoice?

NetChoice is a technology industry trade organization that represents many of the world’s largest internet companies, including Meta, TikTok, Snap, Google, and other digital platforms.

The organization frequently challenges state laws that regulate online services, arguing that many such laws violate the First Amendment or interfere with interstate commerce. In recent years, NetChoice successfully obtained injunctions blocking similar parental consent laws in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Georgia.

Following the Ohio ruling, NetChoice argued the decision ran contrary to what it called the “clear national consensus.”

Paul Taske, director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, said, “An unconstitutional law protects no one, and we remain focused on ensuring the First Amendment rights of Ohioans are protected.”

The organization has indicated it intends to continue challenging Ohio’s law.

Why Ohio’s Victory Is So Unusual

The Ohio decision is notable precisely because NetChoice has developed an impressive record of courtroom victories against nearly identical legislation.

Federal courts previously blocked similar laws in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Georgia after agreeing with NetChoice’s arguments that requiring age verification and parental consent imposed unconstitutional burdens on speech.

The Sixth Circuit took a different approach.

Instead of viewing Ohio’s law primarily as a restriction on speech, the court focused on parental authority and child protection. The judges concluded that the law simply requires parental permission before minors enter into agreements with companies whose products may expose them to documented psychological risks.

Legal analysts believe the decision could encourage other states considering similar legislation, particularly if additional appellate courts adopt the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning.

The Growing Evidence About Social Media’s Risks

Supporters of Ohio’s law point to an expanding body of research suggesting excessive social media use can contribute to serious mental health problems among young people.

One of the most striking findings comes from a United Nations commissioned study examining six English speaking countries. Researchers found that the traditional belief that youth is life’s happiest period no longer holds true. Instead, life satisfaction now generally increases with age, suggesting today’s young people are experiencing unprecedented emotional challenges.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, rates of persistent sadness, depression, and suicidal thoughts among American teenagers increased by roughly 40 percent during the decade leading up to the COVID-19 pandemic. Although more recent CDC data shows modest improvement, experts continue to describe youth mental health as a major public health concern.

Researchers have identified several factors that may contribute to this decline.

One of the most frequently cited concerns is the design of modern social media platforms. Features such as infinite scrolling, autoplay videos, recommendation algorithms, push notifications, likes, streaks, and personalized content feeds are intentionally designed to maximize engagement. Critics argue these systems continuously stimulate the brain’s reward pathways, encouraging users to remain online for longer periods.

Heavy social media use has also been associated with increased social comparison. Teenagers are constantly exposed to carefully curated images of other people’s lives, appearance, achievements, and relationships. This environment can contribute to anxiety, depression, low self esteem, body image concerns, and feelings of inadequacy.

Cyberbullying presents another serious concern. Unlike traditional bullying, online harassment can continue around the clock and reach victims even in their own homes. Hurtful messages, rumors, embarrassing photos, and exclusion from online groups can spread rapidly and remain accessible indefinitely.

Researchers also note that time spent on phones often replaces face to face interaction. Young people today generally spend less time participating in sports, clubs, hobbies, and in person friendships than previous generations. Social isolation itself has become an independent risk factor for poor mental health.

Economic uncertainty, academic pressure, lingering effects from the pandemic, earlier puberty, concerns about violence, and broader societal anxieties further compound these challenges.

Many advocates therefore argue that parental involvement represents one practical safeguard while researchers continue studying the long term effects of digital technology on developing minds.

Kentucky’s Own Victory Against Social Media Companies

Ohio is not the only state making progress against major technology companies.

In neighboring Kentucky, the Breathitt County School District recently reached settlements with YouTube, Snap, and TikTok after alleging that their platforms contributed to a youth mental health crisis.

School officials argued that addictive platform designs forced schools to spend millions addressing depression, anxiety, counseling needs, behavioral problems, and student mental health services.

The district had sought more than $60 million in damages along with funding for a 15 year mental health program and changes to addictive platform features. Although settlement terms remain confidential, the agreements represented a significant milestone because the case had been approaching trial.

The lawsuit continues against Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram.

Kentucky’s case focuses not simply on harmful content, but on platform design itself. Plaintiffs argue that features including infinite scroll, autoplay, recommendation algorithms, beauty filters, likes, and constant notifications were deliberately engineered to maximize engagement and keep children online longer.

Attorney Mark Lanier summarized the plaintiffs’ position by stating, “These companies built machines designed to addict the brains of children. And they did it on purpose.” He also described many platforms as “digital casinos” built to hook young users.

New Mexico Seeks Sweeping Changes

Perhaps the most aggressive legal effort is now underway in New Mexico.

State officials secured a $375 million judgment after a jury concluded Meta violated consumer protection laws by misrepresenting the safety of its platforms for children.

Now the state is pursuing structural reforms rather than simply financial penalties.

Among the proposed changes are stronger age verification systems, enhanced default privacy protections for minors, limits on infinite scrolling and autoplay features, tighter controls over messaging systems, and independent monitoring of Meta’s compliance.

Meta has argued that some proposed requirements would be technologically impractical and warned it could remove its platforms from New Mexico entirely rather than comply.

New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez rejected that argument, calling it a “PR stunt” and insisting the company possesses the resources necessary to make its products safer.

A National Debate Continues

The Ohio ruling, Kentucky settlements, and New Mexico litigation reflect a growing national debate over where responsibility should lie for protecting children online.

Supporters of stronger regulation argue that companies intentionally built products that exploit children’s psychological vulnerabilities for advertising revenue and should therefore be held accountable.

Critics counter that parents remain primarily responsible for supervising children’s online activity and warn that aggressive regulation could interfere with free expression and create significant constitutional concerns.

Ohio Attorney General Andy Wilson summarized the state’s position following the appellate victory.

“The court agreed that parents, not social media companies, should get a say in what kids see online,” he said. “We have an obligation to keep our children safe, and today, the most dangerous place for our kids is the internet. This decision gives parents the tools to be involved and provide oversight.”

As more courts confront these questions, Ohio’s unexpected victory may prove to be an important turning point in the national effort to balance children’s safety, parental authority, and the constitutional rights claimed by some of the world’s largest technology companies